The OMB Code of Conduct lists Fairness as being
one of its main goals, in all of its repeated actions. This fairness
is not only adhered to in order to comply with the law but also to ensure
that the OMB members are "avoiding situations that might undermine the
public's confidence in their objectivity and impartiality." The
OMB has both a moral and legal obligation to avoid any whiff of scandal
or hint of corruption in the mind of a reasonable person who views the
facts or events. The reasons why Mr. Culham should not have been
the OMB judge of this matter are numerous but also are the questions that
need to be asked, such as how he could ever have become the lone OMB member
for this Hearing.

The OMB Code of Conduct, Section 1, states
"FAIRNESS - Principle - Members must provide services and perform statutory
functions in an impartial, lawful, unbiased and just
manner. Member Responsibility * Members have an obligation
to act fairly in the conduct of adjudicative proceedings."

Mr. Culham has a history of being unfair towards
the Northmount community, the Cawthra Bush and myself. As the Cawthra
Bush is one of the Northmount community's greatest assets, harming the
former is detrimental to the latter and vice versa. The list of how
Councillor Culham's actions and inactions help the City harm the Cawthra
Bush is dealt with later on in this brief. The OMB/Mr. Culham, by
not taking issue with or fully investigating the CRRA & FCB Nov. 27/03
letter about the unlawful methods being used by the City as well as other
documents in our submission to the OMB, was approving one of the most unfair
methods imageable at erecting barriers to our participation & defeating
the community efforts at being meaningfully involved in this OMB Hearing
and related Planning issues. This is contrary to the second most
important section of the OMB Code of Conduct - Accessibility.

Councillor Culham's history of prejudice and
ill-will goes back to early 1994, when he had the chance to aid our community
effort but instead remained silent, later to become active against us and
our interests. Councillor Culham had claimed to be a environmentalist
but oddly did not call me up to offer advice or how to deal with the Mayor
in order to save the Cawthra Bush. Maybe Councillor Culham was not
willing to share the title of environmental activist?

In documents from the Peel Archives, he labels
me an "extremists"[1]. As Councillor Culham was fighting a losing
political battle with the Mayor,[2] it is not unreasonable to think that
in the political world he could try to be useful to her and do her a favor
in hopes of getting one for himself, that a politician (Mr. Culham) would
help another politician (the Mayor) by defeating a community effort (ours)
especially if it was not in his Ward. He even suggested starting
a group to undermine ours.

Mr. Culham's involvement with the City's Official
Plans and the Cawthra Woods Management Plan, both of which he was significantly
involved in therefore making him the judge of his own past actions.
How reasonable is it to expect Ex-politician Culham to be a fair judge
of his own work? I can hardly see where OMB Member Culham can "provide
services and perform statutory functions in an impartial, lawful,
unbiased
and just manner.", given his conduct and when he is, in effect,
the judge of his own work, Ward business associates & political accomplices.

1 - Doc. 9, item A
2 - Doc. 32

....5

- 5 -

How fair is it that the 3 letters (Feb. 11/04-#
2 [Faxed][1], Feb. 23/04 [Faxed & in mail][2], Mar. 15/04 [Faxed])[3]
and phone call (Mar. 5/04) sent to the OMB Chair about this matter go unanswered?
I know of another member of the community who called the OMB about this
issue and was met with hostility for asking questions about Mr. Culham's
conduct. Where is the OMB's fairness and honour? The OMB has
given its stamp of approval to the unjust & unlawful methods
used by the City and has even aided the City agenda when it allowed OMB
member Culham to judge this matter. Further, it will be setting a
precedence for other ex-politician OMB members to get involved in matters
that will destroy what little remains of the public's trust.

1 - Doc. 57.1
2 - Doc. 58
3 - Doc. 60

In brief, what is Conflict of Interest?

Conflict of Interest is being Bias for gain.
Any kind (or even the appearance) of personal gain or special interest
regarding the matter being judged is a matter of great concern to Canadian
legal standards. The involvement of past political associates, who
currently control Mr. Culham's political legacy is noteworthy. The
public could reasonably suspect some kind of gain by the OMB member by
way of a hidden political favor (being made or returned) or that he has
some other special personal interest, which is very possible given the
circumstances surrounding this OMB matter. As the evidence for Bias
is very strong, it is logical to seek the reasons for the Bias.

The OMB or the Board must respect its own rules
and the greater body of Canadian law to preserve the faith of Canadians
in their own government and legal system. It is a common thread throughout
Canadian common law, administrative law, natural justice and law in general,
that there be an automatic disqualification for any Judges who have any
Conflict of Interest with one of the parties or is otherwise so closely
connected with a party that they can reasonably be said to be judge in
their own cause. "The fundamental principle is that a man may
not be a judge in his own cause."

The OMB has set out its standard regarding
Conflict of Interest in its Code of Conduct, which is worded slightly differently
from what is commonly noted in the legal judgements for Canadian courts/quasi-judicial
functions that also govern the OMB. The OMB Code of Conduct uses
the words - "a financial interest" or "gifts", need to be involved "or
may be perceived to be". The standard I am writing to is mostly to
the one mentioned in the cases noted, but also how many people express
it to me and appears to be noted in the OMB's Code of Conduct. The
interruption that "gifts" or benefit(s) that "may be perceived" as having
the appearance of a Conflict if Interest, can reasonably bring Conflict
of Interest into this matter, as it involves items that have a dollar value
and that the OMB member could reasonable want or have a special personal
interest in. The usual standard for a quasi-judicial tribunal and
courts are addressed in this brief (performed to the best of my ability)
to demonstrate the seriousness of this matter.

....6

- 6 -

Politicians often see their legacy as more
important then direct financial gain and it could be considered a personal
gift to their ego and memory. The standard of a gift with a personal
or special interest can easily apply in this case. The "Culham Trail",
a gift to Mr. Culham's political legacy, comes first to mind. Then
there are the hundreds of trees he planted and other projects he takes
to heart in seeing as his political legacy in Mississauga. The "Culham
Trail" is still under construction, so changes to it could occur.
I am sure OMB member Culham would not like to see any of his political
legacy fall into disrepair, renamed, unfinished/built, removed, etc, all
of which the Mayor has significant control over, who many have noted, has
no love for Mr. Culham and is vengeful.[1] Because of Mr. Culham's
long history in Mississauga it is reasonable to assume there could be many
other ways the long term Mayor Hazel McCallion could apply pressure to
Ex-Councillor Culham's legacy of his other special interests. The
OMB Code of Conduct does talk about the OMB member not having any kind
of "financial interest" in the matter before adjudication. This is
not something I have had time to fully research.

When the Issue of Conflict of interest was
first presented to Mr. Culham in an OMB Hearing, he responded by threatening
me with police action rather then properly dealing with the issue as the
OMB Code of Conduct requires, a move more typical of a City of Mississauga
Councillor. I did not pursue the matter fully at that time due to
his threats against me.

1 - Doc. 32, item C

In brief, what is Bias?

Bias is a lack of neutrality or impartiality
(real, perceived or the reasonable apprehension of it) on the part of a
decision-maker regarding an issue to be decided, such that "considerations
extraneous to the evidence or the applicable law, policy or argument made
in the case" can affect the decisions made. It may even be the likelihood
of an unconscious Bias or favouritism due to dealing with those before
an OMB Hearing (or otherwise involved) that have a current or past relationship,
(personal or business) with the OMB member judging the matter. One
example of Bias the OMB uses that is particularly germane is "There may
be an apprehension of bias when a Member demonstrates possession of and
reliance on information that has been gained through prior involvement
with one party to a dispute regarding the dispute." Ex-Councillor
Culham sat on Mississauga City Council, in general, and specifically, during
his years on the Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee.[1] Because
Conflict of Interest is one of the foundations of Bias and proving a direct
financial gain in a Conflict of Interest case can be very hard (more so
for members of the public) Bias has a very broad interpretation to help
prevent Conflicts of Interest. Bias is grounds for removal of a judge
or overturning a decision.

The OMB Code of Conduct states, "section 13.
BIAS AND APPREHENSION OF BIAS Member Responsibility * Members
should not only be unbiased, but also appear to be so. A reasonable
apprehension of bias by an observer can be as detrimental to the hearing
as actual bias." The OMB Code of Conduct also goes into detail about
other items significantly tied to Bias, such as; (1) Fairness; (4) Quality
and Consistency; (5) Transparency; (8) Courtesy; (9) Good Conduct and (11)
Impartiality. All of these can be viewed as relating to Bias, as
violating them could easily be seen as a sign of partiality, such as in
this case and how OMB member Culham conducted the Hearing. Cedric Barclay
once said, "silence is an arbitrator’s mother tongue". Mr. Culham
may have been silent regarding sources of possible Conflict of Interest
and/or Bias (before his written decision) but he certainly was not when
it came to his verbal harassment of the public.

1 - Doc. 8.1

....7

- 7 -

Councillor Culham's history of Bias and prejudice
goes back to 1994 and it needs to be noted that before the Cawthra Bush,
I was not involved in politics (except for voting which I always did) and
had no prior contact or involvement with Mississauga's elected officials.
No prejudices, no hidden agendas or other political interests, just a life
long Mississaugan trying to do the right thing for his community, the environment
we all depend on for our health and up-hold our Democratic right to be
fully & meaningfully involved in local government decision making.
Things went the way they did, as that was what Mississauga's politicians
wanted to happen.

A memo found in the Peel
Archives[1]
really is the smoking gun about how City politicians frame those who lead
public opposition to City plans. In it, Councillor Culham says the
City should begin a file or a "security program" aimed at me and later
use it to inform the public & media. Politicians giving direction
to City staff to centre out a person and start reporting about that targeted
person, only encourages them to file false reports, to be confrontational
and in general be bullies. By some this would be seen as a job advancement
opportunity, a way to profit by serving their political employers' desires.
A traditional political method of creating a crisis, has been used.
You can then blame it on the person who can't afford a lawyer to fight
back or to buy justice in Canadian courts, destroy their hard work and
good reputation with slanderous accusations which a media friendly to local
politicians will broadcast it widely and often; thus discrediting a community
leader and removing a political obstacle to the wishes of City hall.
The facts support this, I was even pushed from behind on to a lady (who
is a senior) by City security and of course the report made it all sound
so reasonable. Physical assaults are part of the escalating harassment
by City staff.

This memo says it should be done in secret
"put the issue on a committee agenda without any documentation".
Keep it hidden till they can spring the trap. Have yet to see City
records about an equal effort to work with the FCB & CRRA to resolve
any differences between the City and the community & work together
for the common goal of saving the Cawthra Bush. So much easier and
cost effective to label a person or group for the purpose of denying them
reasonable access to services from the local government. What the
City did to those who tried to form a union is another example.

The City's Freedom of Information (FOI) Coordinator
has made many efforts to make sure I do not get proper access to the security
files about me, her methods include making false and unbelievable statements.
In the past, to keep the Mayor's promise that I would not get City records,
the FOI Coordinator has made such unbelievable statements to justify withholding
City records that the Canadian Environmental Law Association has noted,
after reviewing City statements "We submit that this claim, on the part
of the City, lacks credibility".

Mr. Culham goes on to state "try to organize
a citizen group as an alternative to Mr. Barber's ... "Friends of the Cawthra
Bush"". In other words create a group friendly to City wishes to
undermine an existing community group that opposes City wishes. The
OMB put this man, with his history of underhanded political actions and
harassment against our community, as the judge in this matter. How
fair and reasonable is that?

There is also, the matter of Mr. Culham's finger prints being
all over the City's Official Plans and the Cawthra Woods Management Plan,
both of which he has been significantly involved in. How reasonable
is it to expect Ex-politician Culham to be a fair and unbiased judge of
his own political legacy? Is he not in a clear position of Conflict
of Interest and/or Bias?